b-greek-digest Thursday, 1 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 729
In this issue:
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: dynamic equivalence defin...
Mt. Sinai Manuscripts
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: dynamic equivalence
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: Mark 16:8
Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
Re: dynamic equivalence defin...
internet providers in southwestern Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:31:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
As to whether 16:8 = the original ending of Mark, it is probably
impossible to offer a clinching case one way or the other. But I've come
to think (for a variety of reasons) that 16:8 may in fact be the original
ending. For one thing, as Phil Davis has pointed out (and as I support
in a newly-finished paper on "Discipleship in Mark"), the "shape" of
Mark's narrative seems to have been designed the make the story of Jesus
reflect the "story" of the Christian life: beginning with baptism, into
mission, opposition, martyrdom, and vindication-by-resurrection. We know
that resurrection appearance-accounts functioned to legimate those to
whom the appearance happened as authoritative witnesses/figures (e.g., 1
Cor 9:1; 15:1-7). By announcing that Jesus is raised, but not giving any
appearance account, what Mark gives us is the resurrected Jesus himself,
with no interest in posing particular Christian leaders as the role
model, but Jesus himself.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:40:58 -0400
Subject: Re: dynamic equivalence defin...
Tim,
These are helpful statements. I think the danger of dynamic equivalence is
that the translator MUST first interpret the text, before rendering it into
the receptor language. I contend that, whenever possible, translation should
be left to the reader. I don't want the translator to tell me what he things
the text means. I want him to tell me what the text says so that I can try
to figure out what it means!
Obviously, there are times when this is not possible. As an expositor, I
make comments that reflect my interpretations. But I do try to keep those
comments separate and distinct from the Word of God itself.
Whenever possible, I favor Formal Equivalence. When that is not possible, I
am thankful for those who practice honest dynamic equivalence. The most
popular selling Bible in the US today uses dynamic equivalence. Do you think
this might reflect laziness on the part of the reading public? Might it be
"I am not committed enough to interpret for myself; just tell me what it
means"?
George
------------------------------
From: MARK NISPEL <mnispel@herbie.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 18:03:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Mt. Sinai Manuscripts
In a series of three articles in Biblical Archeologist (the last
being the Winter 1980 edition) James Charlesworth reported a
significant find of Greek manuscripts at St. Catherine's monastery at Mt.
Sinai including perhaps some missing leaves of Codex Sinaiticus. I
came across these articles about 5 years ago or so but have not seen
any further reports on the topic since 1980. The discovery of the
manuscripts was supposedly on May 26, 1975, precisely 20 years ago.
Has anyone seen or have any other information on this find since 1980?
I find it hard to believe that 15 years have passed with no further
word on the nature of this find. Thanks.
Mark Nispel
mnispel@herbie.unl.edu
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 16:26:55 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
I will probably regret making this comment, but my "gut feeling" is
that Mark 16:8 must NOT be the end of Mark's Gospel. The fact that
there are multiple endings in the MS tradition suggests to me that
scribes felt the same thing that I do: the Gospel cannot possibly
end without post-resurrection appearances to validate Jesus' claims
and without a commissioning of the disciples. If mark ends at 16:8,
then it lacks a resurrection. Some unknown individual, whom some deny
is an angel (why I don't know) announces the resurrection but that's
all. We don't know who he is or why we should believe him. And that's
it. No risen Jesus. No validation of Jesus' message (no resurrection,
why believe anything Jesus or Mark has to say theologically, no reason
to remain/become a follower of Jesus). Furthermore, there's no
commissioning really in Mark under this scenario. The disciples can
just as easily go back to what they were doing as remain in Jerusalem to
await the giving of the Holy Spirit. It's like ending the movie
Star Wars with the Rebels attacking the Death Star but never showing if
they are successful or not. That's okay in a weekly serial television
show, but Mark doesn't end with a "To be continued". This is it:
a dead Jesus, frightened women, failed disciples, and some unknown
person who says Jesus is risen. That doesn't call _me_ to
decision. It calls me to _derision_ of whomever would think that such
a story would sway me at all. I do feel Gundry has a strong case,
apart from my own "gut feeling", but that's another subject.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 19:45:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 31 May 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I will probably regret making this comment, but my "gut feeling" is
> that Mark 16:8 must NOT be the end of Mark's Gospel. The fact that
> there are multiple endings in the MS tradition suggests to me that
> scribes felt the same thing that I do: the Gospel cannot possibly
> end without post-resurrection appearances to validate Jesus' claims
> and without a commissioning of the disciples. If mark ends at 16:8,
> then it lacks a resurrection. Some unknown individual, whom some deny
> is an angel (why I don't know) ...
Because the text calls him a NEANISKOS, and it seems that the author would
have specificed an angel far more clearly, as Luke and Matthew do.
... announces the resurrection but that's
> all. We don't know who he is or why we should believe him. And that's
> it. No risen Jesus. No validation of Jesus' message (no resurrection,
> why believe anything Jesus or Mark has to say theologically, no reason
> to remain/become a follower of Jesus).
I've argued this with you before off-line, Ken, but I'll repeat it once
again: the way I read this text, the READER is told to believe that Jesus
has risen and warned that this is a matter of faith. It is it any less a
matter of faith if you have a narrative reporting an epiphany? Why should
such a narrative be believed any more than the report of the NEANISKOS in
the tomb? Of course we have the three passion predictions of Jesus at
8:31, 9:31, and 10:33-34, each capped with his own predictions of his
resurrection. At 14:28 he tells them at the last supper that he will go
ahead of them into Galilee AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. Then at 16:7 the
NEANISKOS repeats to them (via the women) that promise and assures them
that Jesus is already headed thither and that they will SEE him THERE.
With all that I really don't see why an epiphany of the risen Jesus would
enhance the narrative; it seems to me rather that it would detract in
that it would undermine the challenge to the reader that this gospel as a
whole represents.
... Furthermore, there's no
> commissioning really in Mark under this scenario. The disciples can
> just as easily go back to what they were doing as remain in Jerusalem to
> await the giving of the Holy Spirit. It's like ending the movie
> Star Wars with the Rebels attacking the Death Star but never showing if
> they are successful or not. That's okay in a weekly serial television
> show, but Mark doesn't end with a "To be continued". ...
It rather reminds me of the scene in Exodus where Moses wants some proof
from Yahweh that it really is Yahweh who is commissioning him to
undertake this immense responsibility of leading Israelite slaves out of
Egypt into freedom, only to be told that the SIGN is that when Moses has
carried out his commission he will worship Yahweh at this mountain: he
will not get his sign until AFTER he has carried out his charge.
... This is it:
> a dead Jesus, frightened women, failed disciples, and some unknown
> person who says Jesus is risen. That doesn't call _me_ to
> decision.
By the time you see this you will already have seen Larry Hurtado's
latest post in response to my question earlier today. I think it should
give you something serious to think about. And at the same time, we need
to think about the NEANISKOS who escapes naked from the arrest scene
(14:15) leaving behind him a ... burial shroud? Text: hO DE KATALIPWN THN
SINDONA GUMNOS EFUGEN.
... It calls me to _derision_ of whomever would think that such
> a story would sway me at all. I do feel Gundry has a strong case,
> apart from my own "gut feeling", but that's another subject.
There's no danger that this matter will likely ever be settled to
everyone's satisfaction (this side of the grave, that is), but I would
hope, Ken, that you can recognize at least some plausibility in the other
side of the argument. AND, let me remind you of your unwillingness to
take the Q hypothesis seriously precisely because it it hypothetical. An
ending to Mark other than 16:8, no matter what Gundry argues, will have
to be hypothetical until some earth-shaking new manuscript evidence comes
to light.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:31:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
At 4:26 PM 31/05/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> [...] Some unknown individual, whom some deny
>is an angel (why I don't know) announces the resurrection but that's
>all. We don't know who he is or why we should believe him. And that's
>it. No risen Jesus. No validation of Jesus' message (no resurrection,
>why believe anything Jesus or Mark has to say theologically, no reason
>to remain/become a follower of Jesus). [...] This is it:
>a dead Jesus, frightened women, failed disciples, and some unknown
>person who says Jesus is risen. That doesn't call _me_ to
>decision. It calls me to _derision_ of whomever would think that such
>a story would sway me at all. [...]
This may be. Nonetheless the question, however, is was this enough for the
community from which Mark arose --particularly at this early a stage in the
development of Christianity?
That such communities existed seems reasonably clear; for example, neither
the community that produced the Gospel of Thomas nor that produce the
Synoptics Saying source seems to show an overwhelming emphasis to this
assertion; i.e. that Resurrection == A (or, rather, The Only) Reason to
Believe.
Nichael -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net words: "This is the temple of the
Paradise Farm Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT temple of the Lord".
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:34:11 -0400
Subject: Re: dynamic equivalence
George Golde writes,
" I don't want the translator to tell me what he things the text means. I
want him to tell me what the text says so that I can try to figure out what
it means!"
But few people have the equipment to interpret even English literature, let
alone Greek, that George does! The target group for any translation is very
important. There must be a basis in the original for what is in the original
text, but any translation committee must make choices lest they heap too
heavy a load on the receptors for which they are poorly trained.
For my Greek students I recommend that they check themselves against the ASV
or NASV; but for my children who did not study Greek but medicine, I bought
the TEV as soon as it came out. I did not agree with all their decisions,
but I could see reasons in the text for what they did. I have to say that
Bob Bratcher did some good things in the NT. I am more critical of the OT,
but still what they did is defenseable.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:50:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Ken,
I think that you are reading Mark with no regard to its original context or
yours for that matter. You have grown up reading Matthew, Luke, and John.
Mark's readers were not in that position. They had probably all heard the
traditions preached, knew that the disciples had survived those earliest days
and had gone out to preach and that some had already died for their faith.
You say,
"That's okay in a weekly serial television show, but Mark doesn't end with a
"To be continued". This is it: a dead Jesus, frightened women, failed
disciples, and some unknown person who says Jesus is risen. That doesn't
call _me_ to decision. It calls me to _derision_ of whomever would think
that such a story would sway me at all."
The twice repeated promise to "go before" them to Galilee contains a promise.
The prediction given to the two disciples, "You will drink of the cup from
which I drink" and the matter of fact predictions in 13 about their suffering
have already began to come true. This helps off set the fact that all the
way through Mark the disciples look like dunderheads who cannot understand
anything. His readers are led to decide not to fail like that. Some good
discussions of Marks hooks and 16:8 are in Ernest Best on Mark's concept of
discipleship, Willi Marxsen, C.S. Mann, Mark in the Anchor (though his whole
commentary is marred by the impossible effort to show Mark's dependence on
Matthew). The setting seems clearly to be the need to convince the readers
not of the resurrection but of the need to commit to a concept of a suffering
Messiah/discipleship.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 22:49:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
On Wed, 31 May 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
[DELETIONS]
> Sorry I don't have one of his books handy. What I remember
> the gist of what Nida was saying was that he encouraged the translator to
> read the sentence aloud in the origin language at
> least three times in order to fully understand and experience it.
> Then, with the image and experience of the origin language
> still fresh, the translator then seeks an equivilant phrase in the
> receptor language based on his or her knowledge of the usage
> of the receptor language by the people for whom the translation
> is being made. The translator is to speak aloud this receptor language
> phrase three times as well before writing it down.
>
> While this approach has been sucessful, and I laud that
> success, there are weaknesses. Mainly, one must recognize
> that translators, know matter how well they know the Greek
> language, are still far removed from the setting of the
> original hearers/readers of the NT text. Their "experience"
> of the text is going to different, based upon their own
> sitz in Leben.
[DELETIONS]
> The dynamic equivilency translator must keep in mind
> the world of Luke, and of Paul and of Mark, etc. and seek to
> understand their experience while bringing a translation out of
> their own experience of the Greek text.
I think Tim has given a good overview of dynamic equivalence methodology
in general and the potential problem it poses when practiced by someone
who is not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the writing of the
original text (including the values, world view, etc. of the author). The
United Bible Societies (UBS) have designed a safeguard to help minimize this
problem for their published translations. Each translation effort
(portion of a translation) is done under the supervision of a
"translation consultant", a person trained in biblical studies and who
reads the biblical languages well.
I began my doctoral studies under the supervision of Roger Omanson who
now serves as one such translation consultant for West Africa. His
knowledge of the history, societies, values, etc. of the communities
which produced the biblical documents is impressive. His command of the
biblical languages is equally amazing. In addition to these qualities, he
possesses a sound understanding of modern linguistics. The UBS hires such
people to help avoid the kind of problem which Tim has correctly
suggested may accompany an attempt to apply dynamic equivalence translation
without adequate knowledge of background information.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 20:04:28 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Dear Carlton,
It may be that the point is to convince hearers of the need to
"commit to a concept of a suffering Messiah/discipleship", but there's
still a problem. Mark's Gospel if it ends at 16:8 works equally well
for Koester's theory of Jesus' disciples owrshipping at his tomb knowing
his body is present. There's no resurrection in Mark so who cares
whether there ever was a resurrection. It seems completely irrelevant
to mark if he is not prepared to authenticate it. Mark is asking his
audience to commit to something that has no basis: follow Jesus and be
a disciple like him; it's immaterial whether he's alive or dead, as shown
by my choice to not provide evidence for either. Is that not the case?
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 23:21:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
In the discussion of translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence it
seems to me that some of the participants are using the relevant terms
with different (and sometimes controdictory) assumed meanings. In this
note I intend to make public the meanings that *I* assign to these three
terms. My meanings are based entirely on usage among linguists and may
seem somewhat strange in comparison with the way these terms are used by
people in your church.
Well, here goes. . .
Translation --
Any communication in one language of a message which was
originally stated in a different language.
Paraphrase --
Any rewording of a message, whether from one language to another
or within a single language, which conveys the basic meaning content, but
disregards the formal grammatical properties of the original message.
Dynamic Equivalence --
A type of translation which uses paraphrase to communicate as
accurately as possible the meaning of a text and produce in the readers
of the translation a response which is equivalent in terms of their own
culture to the response of the original readers in terms of their culture.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 23:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: dynamic equivalence defin...
On Wed, 31 May 1995 GGoolde@aol.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> These are helpful statements. I think the danger of dynamic equivalence is
> that the translator MUST first interpret the text, before rendering it into
> the receptor language. I contend that, whenever possible, translation should
> be left to the reader. I don't want the translator to tell me what he things
> the text means. I want him to tell me what the text says so that I can try
> to figure out what it means!
>
> Obviously, there are times when this is not possible. . . .
>
I would go a bit further. I would say there is never a time when this IS
possible. EVERY translation is an interpretation, even the most woodenly
literal one. Even in a word-for-word translation (which, by the way,
would be impossible to read) the translator would have to DECIDE how to
translate each word, since there are extremely few words (arguably none)
which have EXACTLY the same meaning in English and Greek. This being the
case, the translator must interpret, deciding what English word best
represents the meaning of each Greek word in each context--even in the
most literal of translations.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 23:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: internet providers in southwestern Virginia
This message does not directly address Greek or the New Testament, so
delete it if not interested.
In July I will be returning to Virginia to resume my responsibilities in
the Religion and Philosophy department at Bluefield College. The college
does not have an internet connection. If you have information on
commercial internet providers with services available in southwestern
Virginia or southern West Virginia, I would greatly appreciate any
information you could provide. Please send me the appropriate information
off the list so as not to bother list members who do not want to receive it.
I already have information on America Online.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
email: mpalmes@email.unc.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #729
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu